No Evidence for 1st Century Nazareth

[outhouse]

here is a good reason why they chose nazareth, it was prophecy

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.


I dont put much weight in this either, but the NT authors were well versed in jewish canon

 

[tarasan]

so close but no cigar as they say. nothing points pre 67ce

the fact that we have documentation so close means its probable that there were things before especially if we have a document aka the bible that says so, we have no reason to disbelieve it, especially since being from the town was as the bible points out, a bad thing

they do appear, when was nazareth first housed or even named.??


do you call a tent city a town?

would a tent city support a synagogue?


was the name nazereth later misinterpreted ??

a tent city would indeed considering a synagogue is a meeting place, you could quite literally have a synagogue anywhere and this has already been pointed out to you. the rest of the questions im sure how to answer cause they are rather strange. how do they advance the conversation?

 

[fallingblood]

Great post fallingblood. However, the Gospel writers, writing several decades after the fact, could possibly have been forced to place Jesus' birth in Nazareth by a stubborn myth, no? Apparently it was widely accepted that Jesus was resurrected from the cross, so the Gospel writers included that detail, too. Couldn't more mundane details also have become cemented as part of the Jesus myth? And there is some motivation to place Jesus' birth in Nazareth: if I recall correctly, one of the Gospel writers claimed Jesus' birth fulfilled the prophesy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene (or am I mistaken?)

The prophecy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene was a prophecy attached to the Messiah after the fact.

If we look at Messianic expectancy during the first century, before Jesus, there wasn't a suggestion that they would be a Nazarene. It wasn't until after the death of Jesus that such a connection was made.

The Gospel writers had a tendency to go back into scripture and try to find things that fit Jesus in order to explain his life and events that occurred during his life. This is just one more example of that.

 

[outhouse]

thanks for the reply

im leaving work and will reply later

 

[fallingblood]

here is a good reason why they chose nazareth, it was prophecy

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.


I dont put much weight in this either, but the NT authors were well versed in jewish canon

This was a prophecy that had nothing to do with the Messiah, and was never attached to the Messiah. If they wanted Jesus to be a Nazarite, they would have made him such, not place him in an obscure hamlet which never made him a Nazarite.

 

[tarasan]

here is a good reason why they chose nazareth, it was prophecy

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.


I dont put much weight in this either, but the NT authors were well versed in jewish canon

dude im fairly certian that the verse was the birth of samson..... if you bothered reading the chapter title.....

 

[outhouse]

lol I said I didnt put much weight into it

 

[tarasan]

lol I said I didnt put much weight into it

yeah, slightly embarressed for christianity now, sorry you had to see that website

 

[angellous_evangellous]

here is a good reason why they chose nazareth, it was prophecy

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.


I dont put much weight in this either, but the NT authors were well versed in jewish canon

It looks like you've misunderstood your source.

If there is a Jewish prophesy concerning Nazareth, then Nazareth had to have existed at the time that the prophesy was written (and therefore before the prophesy was written, because it didn't just spring up). Why the NT authors chose it is irrelevant to the prophesy itself, but the town obviously still existed during their time because no one would believe that Jesus came from a town that didn't exist.

 

[Tellurian]

Have you read Celsus? I don't think you have. Because there is a lot more that Celsus stated about Jesus than what your link supplied. And even in that passage you linked to, Jesus is never called Yeshu ben Pantera. If you read the story of Yeshu ben Pantera though, you would see that it really does not resemble closely the life of Jesus. More so, Celsus doesn't call Jesus Yeshu ben Pantera, that only occurs later in Jewish writings.

If you read Celsus, and I suggest you do if you are going to use him as a source, you will see that he had no doubt that the Jesus, as spoken of by Christians, the Jesus we see in the Bible, was a living human being. He doesn't suggest that he was made up or formed out of several different individuals. He doesn't suggest that he was a fictional character. He accepted that Jesus did in fact exist. He states very clearly that Jesus (referring to the founder of Christianity, the individual written about in the NT) was truly a man. He denies the divinity of Jesus, but has no problem in accepting that Jesus actually existed.

Again, you need to read Celsus if you are going to use him as a source. However, be prepared to realize that he is not the most credible source, as his personal biases are extremely strong.

Celsus writes about the Christian Jesus as being the son of the Roman soldier Pantera, which shows that the story of Yeshu (Jesus) ben Pantera was used to help create the biblical Jesus character of the Christians, but the story was changed to add a "virgin" mother.

For an interesting critique of Celsus' quotes from Origen and an analysis of the teachings of Celsus and Origen (that you will not find on a Christian website) you might want to take a look at the following site:

Celsus and Origen

Celsus was quite critical of the Christians and Jews, but it is interesting that some of Celsus' beliefs seem to have been later incorporated into Christian scripture.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The prophecy that the Messiah would be a Nazarene was a prophecy attached to the Messiah after the fact.

If we look at Messianic expectancy during the first century, before Jesus, there wasn't a suggestion that they would be a Nazarene. It wasn't until after the death of Jesus that such a connection was made.

The Gospel writers had a tendency to go back into scripture and try to find things that fit Jesus in order to explain his life and events that occurred during his life. This is just one more example of that.

Ah, I see ... thanks to you and angellous for sharing your knowledge.

 

[Tellurian]

Please, tell me how many Christian theologians before Eusebius quoted the passage in question at all. We know that Origen paraphrased it, and there we see him including that James was the brother of Jesus. Who, before Origen, quote the passage? 0. Your point fails miserably.

Au contraire. IF Josephus had mentioned the biblical Jesus, THEN wouldn't the Christian theologians have used that as proof that the biblical Jesus had actually existed? Because the Christian theologians did NOT mention that passage indicates there was NO mention of Jesus in that passage until it was added much later.

 

[outhouse]

FB thanks for the insight on the scholarly method

im learning by refuting, I dig up info through into the wind let it land where it may. By doing so im picking up on allot, some bad some good by I do try and use your compass as a guideline.

The stories that were created, that we can be quite sure that were created, added to the beliefs that they already had. They supported their beliefs. They didn't cause problems.

this is one of the areas im confused in. im under the understanding that pre 30 jesus has zero historicity and the theology and story was built around his 3 years as a traveling teacher.

We have no logical reason why Nazareth was said to be the hometown of Jesus besides it actually being his hometown. There is no other reason why Nazareth would be labeled the home of Jesus.

it makes sense

Im just having a hard time swallowing that.

I wish there was a little more one way or the other.


"If" nazareth was in jesus time and he lived there, just when do you think the settlement was inhabited? 10 years before jesus? 20? 40?

the archeology work ive done makes it pretty clear how the people lived after 10 years. 2 or 3 years little is left but you know someone was there and you can gernerally date it by other foundations in an area or atleast see a progression of communities to date properly. even with small glass shards I can date generally within 10 years myself. Thats why the lack of pre CE material of any kind bothers me. They have dated much of that area and dug allot without many clues.

 

[godnotgod]

That makes no sense at all when one has any knowledge on the subject at all. Jesus was not an Essene. That is virtually agreed upon by all scholars. The reason is that Jesus doesn't resemble an Essene at all. Anyone with any knowledge about Essenes would tell you this right away.

Of course he does not resemble an Essene. That is because 'Jesus' is a fantasized/Romanized version of Yeshua. Yeshua's teachings did not include a virgin birth, a bodily resurrection, nor the eating and drinking of flesh and blood, whether actual or symbolic. Jesus was not an Essene for the simple fact that 'Jesus' did not exist. Yeshua, who was real, was an Essene. We have his words in Aramaic, the language he spoke, in the Pe****ta.

'Jesus' is a concoction, though a brilliantly conceived one, from the mind and pen of St. Paul.

So no, he was never part of the Nazorean Essene sect. And the reason he was called a Nazarene, which is explained in the Bible, is because he was known to be from Nazareth.

But in light of recent archaeological evidence, or non-evidence, how can that be? We now know that Nazareth simply did not exist in the 1st century:

[Note that in the following piece, the name 'Jesus' is employed to mean 'Yeshua']

It was into the ancient and mystical B'nai-Amen Temple of the Nazorean that Jesus was born; as it is written: "He shall be called a Nazorean!" (Matthew 2:23)."

The quote above from Matthew 2:23 states a fact: Jesus was a Nazarene. But the verse also contains misleading information: " . . . he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled . . . "

What the writer of this verse intended to do was separate Jesus from the sect of Nazarenes -- a group that considered themselves "Jews," but whose teachings were quite different from those of the Sadducee and Pharisee Jews. Important information confirming this fact comes from Luke's "Acts of the Apostles":

Acts: 24:5: "We have . . . found this man . . . a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Acts 24:13: " . . . I admit to you, that according to The Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets."

Nazarene or Nazareth?

A People Erased from Existence and The City That Never Was. The Disassociation of Jesus from the Holiest of Peoples.

For 20 centuries, most of the life of Jesus has been hidden or suppressed, but modern archeological discoveries have now shed new light on his enigmatic life. Archeologists have now proven that the city of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after his death, and questions long debated in scholarly circles are now coming to the forefront.

Armed with ancient sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the papyrus books of Nag Hammadi, and the long overlooked writings from the early church, modern scholars and theologians are reconstructing the life and times of Jesus, and what they are finding is very different from the life and teachings we have been "led to believe."

Nazareth, The City That Never Was

The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist – not literary, not archaeologically, and not historically.

Biblical scholars and clergy alike have always had difficulty accepting the possibility that at the time of Jesus there was no city called "Nazareth." They have always resisted this possibility and sometimes, quite vigorously.

The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, and perhaps the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records or biblical texts of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud (the Jewish law code), nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages, and Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD), a widely traveled historian who never missed anything and who voluminously describes the region. The name is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

The first reference to Nazareth is in the New Testament where it can be found 29 different times. However, there is still cause for speculation as to whether or not the city existed at the time of Jesus. It is mentioned only in the Gospels and Acts. These books do refer to Nazareth, but they did not originate at this time, they are later writings. The earlier writings of the NT (Paul etc) mention Jesus 221 times - but never mentions Nazareth.

The Way of Jesus the Nazarean

*****

 

[godnotgod]

The fact that all of the Gospel users state that Jesus was from Nazareth, even though it caused embarrassment, problems, and simply has no logical reason for being invented, that all gives it historicity. When examining all of the evidence, the logical conclusion is that Jesus was from Nazareth.

Scriptural allusions written decades later are neither historical nor evidence. Your 'logic' is one which jumps to convenient conclusions based on the tail wagging the dog. You try to make reality fit your beliefs. That is what we call dogma.

We can though. We might not have archeological evidence that points to exactly the time of Jesus, but it is close enough.

Several hundred years is unacceptable.

When we add the Gospel accounts to it (like what I said above), and later inscriptions that speak of it being there around that general time period, we have more than enough evidence to say, beyond a doubt, that Nazareth existed during the first century.

Wishful thinking! Stop making things up! If it existed as described by the Gospels, we should be able to easily verify that claim by looking at the hard archaeological evidence, but when we look, there is none to be found. Conclusion: the claim is erroneous. That is how logic works.

Even you admit that we have evidence of Nazareth existing at least around 67 C.E. It is not a stretch to say that it was already in existence before that time.

You don't understand something quite important: cities take time to build, therefore, it would have had to have been in existence long before 67 CE, as in 'hundreds of years'.

I suggest you stop trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. There is already quite enough of Christianity treating belief and doctrine in the same manner as if it were Absolute Truth.

 

[godnotgod]

Some scholars have argued that any synagogue that might have existed in Nazareth was destroyed and hence no trace can be found. Yet 1st Century synagogues have been found in a number of Galilean cities (e.g., Masada, Gamla, Japha, Capernaum), and there are no records of any mass destructions taking place in Nazareth that would have obliterated a synagogue if it existed.

http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=4

 

[godnotgod]

Most people believe Jesus was raised in Nazareth. Speaking of Joseph, the Gospel of Matthew (2:23) says: “he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’” A careful reading of this passage reveals that the writers of Matthew are trying to fulfill the prophecy, not Jesus, and in order to fulfill the prophecy that “He will be called a Nazarean”, Matthew gives his hometown as Nazareth. But in fact, there is no Old Testament prophecy to the effect that a Messiah will come from a place called Nazareth (which is another in the long list of errors that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew made about Old Testament prophecies). The closest we come to any such description is a passage in Judges (13:5) where Samson’s mother is warned: “…the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines.” The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.

Thus, the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth is a result of a mis-translation of the Old Testament by the writers of Matthew.

http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=4

 

[godnotgod]

The bottom line, therefore, is that we have no idea where Jesus grew up, but we can be reasonably certain that he grew up in the countryside, and not in the city, because Jesus used the language of the villages. When Jesus answered questions or when he used parables, almost all his examples came from the simple life of peasants and villagers. For example, he talked about women making bread, men planting trees, people working in the vineyards, etc. Almost all of his talk about wealth was derisive, as was his attitude toward those who promoted themselves and tried to set themselves above others.

Lived in Nazareth - Jesus Police Website

Yeshua spoke a colorful Galilean dialect of Aramaic, some of its words having two and three meanings, depending on their context. When translated into Greek, however, by clueless Greek scribes, many of these meanings were lost. They only make sense in the original Aramaic tongue. One would need to turn to the Aramaic Pe****ta for study to realize the differences.

 

[outhouse]

godnotgod

that website has a opinion only. Its not valid research and even I find problems with the facts the author is misrepresenting.

its not a good source and it has quite a few faults

its obvious he doesnt have a clue about real history

 

[fallingblood]

Celsus writes about the Christian Jesus as being the son of the Roman soldier Pantera, which shows that the story of Yeshu (Jesus) ben Pantera was used to help create the biblical Jesus character of the Christians, but the story was changed to add a "virgin" mother.

For an interesting critique of Celsus' quotes from Origen and an analysis of the teachings of Celsus and Origen (that you will not find on a Christian website) you might want to take a look at the following site:

Celsus and Origen

Celsus was quite critical of the Christians and Jews, but it is interesting that some of Celsus' beliefs seem to have been later incorporated into Christian scripture.

Again, you need to read Celsus. Yeshu ben Pantera does not show up until many years later. And if one actually reads the story, and compares it to what Celsus stated, there are some problems. And again, Yeshu ben Pantera does not show up until much later. So there is no reason to assume he was used as a foundation for Jesus.

More so, if you read Celsus, you would see that he accepts that Jesus, the one that Christianity worships, the one we see in the Bible, did in fact exist. He never makes a case for there being multiple people behind the Jesus story. He accepts as fact that Jesus existed.

The story of Jesus having the father of a Roman soldier, was for Celsus, the reason why the virgin birth story was made up. He accepts the idea that Christians do in fact say that Jesus was born of a virgin; however, he argues against that. And that is why he used the story of the Roman solider, in order to argue against the Christian idea that Jesus was born of a virgin. This only supports the fact that Celsus in fact did accept that Jesus did exist.

Again, if you read Celsus, if you took any time to do so, you would see that your argument is basically as good as a 1 and a half cent penny. And again, Celsus accepted the fact that Jesus, the one Christians worship, the one who is spoken of in the Bible, was a historical figure. He doesn't suggest that he was made up of various characters.